Common Ground: Election season needs reform

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But, as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.

BOB: The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision lifted restrictions on the amount of money individuals can contribute to federal campaigns. Although the justices left intact the $5,200 limit on contributions to an individual candidate, they abolished the overall limit of $48,600 per individual for all federal campaign contributions. The decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is a devastating blow in efforts to rein in out-of-control costs of campaigns.

CAL: I share your concerns about the amount of money required in campaigns, especially presidential campaigns. Seven billion dollars was spent on the campaigns of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, according to the Federal Election Commission. But despite all of the laws passed to control contributions and spending, politicians find their way around almost every obstacle, so maybe money isn’t the sole problem.

BOB: In 1976, the Supreme Court approved individual limits for contributions to federal campaigns and put a cap on the total amount of contributions by an individual. The decision in Buckley v. Valeo was in response to the Watergate scandal, which used cash contributions for illegal activities in Richard Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign.

CAL: The large amounts of money have contributed to public cynicism. A recent Reason-Rupe poll found that Americans believe three-quarters of politicians are corrupt, and that nearly the same number thinks they use political power to hurt their enemies. Those attitudes discourage people from voting and perpetuate the problems we face.

BOB: This is the sixth time under Chief Justice John Roberts that the Supreme Court has undermined campaign-finance restrictions. Its decision in the case of Citizens United allowed unlimited contributions from corporations, “independent committees” and unions to federal campaigns. Now the court has unleashed contributions by wealthy individuals.

CAL: There is no question that those who contribute the most money expect and often receive the most in return, from favorable laws and regulations to ambassadorships and face-time with the president or powerful members of Congress. The best average people can expect in Washington is a public tour of the White House.

BOB: In this column, we have called for restraining campaign funding. Legislators now must spend time begging for dollars, and lobbyists are more than happy to oblige. We have agreed that whatever campaign-finance structure is established needs to ensure a level playing field between Democrats and Republicans. Chief Justice Roberts said in the recent decision that it was not the role of government to level the playing field. If not the federal government, who?

CAL: It’s about more than money alone. It’s the careers politicians have made of their positions, contrary to the intentions of the Founders. The Roberts court has been consistent in saying that campaign contributions are a form of free speech. Speech may be free, but influence isn’t, and money buys influence.

BOB: We need a campaign-contribution policy that protects the First Amendment but does not allow billionaires like the far-right Koch brothers, and I know you would include the liberal George Soros, to dominate the election process.

CAL: Democrats still would have an advantage on your “even playing field,” because the major news media largely favor their positions. What is needed is to change the way we nominate and elect, especially presidents. The Constitution is silent on the process, including primaries and conventions. We continue to operate on an old and outmoded model, which costs too much and delivers too little, except for the most influential.

BOB: Can we find common ground by agreeing that whatever emerges should avoid taxpayers paying for elections but rejects the Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited money to flood federal campaigns?

CAL: If you could limit expenses, I might agree, but with TV, which all candidates need and which is expensive, charter planes, hotels and paid staff, the costs are great. That’s why I think a reformed way of electing presidents is needed. Perhaps shorten the campaign season, combine more primary elections into one day and make greater use of the free Internet to reach the public, rather than expensive TV.

BOB: I strongly favor shortening the campaign season and putting more primaries and caucuses on the same day, preferably regionally. Modern campaigns are learning to use the Internet, but by allowing no limits on contributions, the airwaves will be dominated by campaign ads paid for by rich people and institutions.